1
This is a misunderstanding. As if there would originally have been "pure subraces" without anything in between. The "pure subraces" - let's think of the nordid as an example - are themselves a product of a long development and are all but "original". The nordid subrace is essentially a depigmented and robusticised mediterranid / ENF shape that was mixed with WHG and EHG, later with some CHG, and that then experienced a genetic drift due to various selection processes ending up in a notably shrinked gene pool compared to the contributing populations.
Of course, the area with the most expressed nordid subrace type was sourrounded by areas with populations that - cline-wise - also were exposed to resembling selection processes that were less strong or that became interrupted and redirected in some other directions etc. All these populations in between - likely even a majority of all humans in Europe - were no "products of mixture" of pure subraces but were as "original" and old as them as they simply were contemporary. This is pure logic.
All this does not exclude someone today historically being the result of a mixing of subraces. But who can distinguish a mixture from an intermediate state? Essentially this is only possible if you have information for the recent genealogy and the ancestors do hail from typologically notably different populations.
Bookmarks